NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1627/2025 (Against the Order dated 17th July 2025 in Appeal SC/21/FA/297/2025 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Odisha)

WITH NC/IA/15411/2025 (EXEMPTION FROM FILING THE CERTIFIED COPY)

NC/IA/15410/2025 (CONDONATION OF DELAY)

NC/IA/15408/2025 (FOR GRANT OF STAY)

NC/IA/15409/2025 (EXEMPTION FROM DIM DOCUMENTS)

STATE OF ODISHA REPRESENTED THROUGH DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER BOUDH PRESENT ADDRESS - AT/PO/DIST BOUDH , BOUDHBOUDH,ODISHA.

LABOUR COMMISSIONER ODISHA BHUBANESWAR PRESENT ADDRESS - BHUBANESWAR , BHUBANESWARKHORDHA,ODISHA.

THE COLLECTOR BOUDH PRESENT ADDRESS - BOUDH , BOUDHBOUDH,ODISHA.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus SABITRI RANA W/o. late samprada rana PRESENT ADDRESS - AT/PO-BAHIRABOUDH,ODISHA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SAROJ YADAV , PRESIDING MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

FOR THE PETITIONERS MS. NEELAKSHI BHADURIA, ADV. (IN VC)

DATED: 13/01/2026

ORDER

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioners/opposite parties being aggrieved of the order dated 17.07.2025, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 297 of 2025, arising out of the Order dated 02.01.2024, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Boudh (for short the ‘District Commission) in Consumer Complaint No. 23 of 2019.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the delay condonation application being IA/15410/2025.

3. There is a reported delay of 26 days in filing of the present revision petition. The reasons given and submissions made are sufficient and convincing to condone the said delay of 26 days. The delay is condoned. IA stands disposed of accordingly.

4. Heard the learned counsel on Memorandum of Revision Petition.

5. The learned counsel submitted that while passing the impugned order the learned State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners on the ground of limitation only and the merits of the appeal were not gone into.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal before the learned State Commission was caused for the reason that the petitioners / appellants are a Government body and it takes time to get approvals at different levels. But that explanation was not considered sufficient by the learned State Commission and the appeal was dismissed, as time-barred.

7. Considered the submissions made and perused the record.

8. The perusal of the impugned order shows that there was a reported delay of 443 days in filing of the appeal before the learned State Commission. The only ground taken by the petitioners / appellants is that the appellants are a Government body and delay was caused in taking approvals etc.

9. In a recent judgement Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karanataka Housing Board & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10704 of 2019) decided on 12.09.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

“261. …….Before we proceed to close this judgment, we deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all throughout. Procedure is handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude.”

10. In Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors.